About a year and a half ago we laid off one of my coworkers. After a few months we were lucky enough to be able to hire her back, and she's absolutely been one of our best employees.

This morning the boss let us know we'd just laid her off again.

Apparently we couldn't lay off the 65 year old idiot who sits behind me instead. The 65 year old idiot who already owns a retirement home in Florida, doesn't need the job, is only working here because she wants to keep herself busy until her husband retires, is constantly on the phone with her family, and is a bumbling goddamn moron who creates situations we have to clean up after on a daily basis. I have zero doubt she was just as much of a bumbling idiot at 25 as she is at 65.

And something tells me our executives will still be bringing home bonuses and pulling down their usual obscene salaries - which could pay for the salaries of thousands of the woman we just laid off. Great work, corporate America.

mongbiohazard:About a year and a half ago we laid off one of my coworkers. After a few months we were lucky enough to be able to hire her back, and she's absolutely been one of our best employees.

This morning the boss let us know we'd just laid her off again.

Apparently we couldn't lay off the 65 year old idiot who sits behind me instead. The 65 year old idiot who already owns a retirement home in Florida, doesn't need the job, is only working here because she wants to keep herself busy until her husband retires, is constantly on the phone with her family, and is a bumbling goddamn moron who creates situations we have to clean up after on a daily basis. I have zero doubt she was just as much of a bumbling idiot at 25 as she is at 65.

And something tells me our executives will still be bringing home bonuses and pulling down their usual obscene salaries - which could pay for the salaries of thousands of the woman we just laid off. Great work, corporate America.

Well, since the direction of Microsoft leadership is that they think they can sell their products with "Fark you if you don't like it, buy it anyway" - maybe they realized that marketing wasn't going to help them one way or the other.

Pincy:I guess the Open Source movement is getting to them more than they want to admit.

Yes and no. They're being done in by their own products. If you walk in to most places you will find Windows XP sat there probably running Office 2003, maybe 2007.

Yes, you might find something newer than Server 2003 racked up but the majority of servers are 2000/2003. Hell the farm I was monitoring still had some NT4 boxes pottering along in 2006 (not even NT4-SP6) with no plans to retire them until they physically died a death.

I'm not saying 7 is bad but businesses look at it and go "This is better than what we've got how?" and frankly I can't tell them how migrating to Win7 will make them more money than they do using machines with XP on them.

sarah_t_s:Pincy: I guess the Open Source movement is getting to them more than they want to admit.

Yes and no. They're being done in by their own products. If you walk in to most places you will find Windows XP sat there probably running Office 2003, maybe 2007.

Yes, you might find something newer than Server 2003 racked up but the majority of servers are 2000/2003. Hell the farm I was monitoring still had some NT4 boxes pottering along in 2006 (not even NT4-SP6) with no plans to retire them until they physically died a death.

I'm not saying 7 is bad but businesses look at it and go "This is better than what we've got how?" and frankly I can't tell them how migrating to Win7 will make them more money than they do using machines with XP on them.

Well, working 64bit support and everything that goes along with moving to 64bit (more RAM) is a start. Running a more efficient OS that boots faster and responds better (which 7 actually does) would be a second point.

sarah_t_s:Pincy: I guess the Open Source movement is getting to them more than they want to admit.

Yes and no. They're being done in by their own products. If you walk in to most places you will find Windows XP sat there probably running Office 2003, maybe 2007.

Yes, you might find something newer than Server 2003 racked up but the majority of servers are 2000/2003. Hell the farm I was monitoring still had some NT4 boxes pottering along in 2006 (not even NT4-SP6) with no plans to retire them until they physically died a death.

I'm not saying 7 is bad but businesses look at it and go "This is better than what we've got how?" and frankly I can't tell them how migrating to Win7 will make them more money than they do using machines with XP on them.

For my work, not only do I need windows 7, I really need 7 Ultimate. See, one of the programming applications I use isn't supported by anything past XP - it won't install easily, and even if you can fake it into thinking it's installing on XP, odds are good that it'll just BSOD you when you try to run it. And this is despite the fact that the company is still in business and charges customers and arm, leg, left nutsack, and a firstborn child every year to stay 'up to date' with it's latest software.

So my choice is find something that's still running XP, or using XP mode in 7 ultimate. I suppose I could use some other virtualization software, but XP mode doesn't require an activation code.

"We're taking steps to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of our marketing, and to strengthen career paths for the remaining marketers at Microsoft by destroying the paths of a few other marketers at Microsoft."FTFY

This is such a steaming piece of corporate-speak it takes my breath away.

This is right up there with:"We're headed in an exciting new direction!" (We are. You're not.)"We're making some staffing changes." (your change will be from 'employed' to 'unemployed.')

armanox:sarah_t_s: Pincy: I guess the Open Source movement is getting to them more than they want to admit.

Yes and no. They're being done in by their own products. If you walk in to most places you will find Windows XP sat there probably running Office 2003, maybe 2007.

Yes, you might find something newer than Server 2003 racked up but the majority of servers are 2000/2003. Hell the farm I was monitoring still had some NT4 boxes pottering along in 2006 (not even NT4-SP6) with no plans to retire them until they physically died a death.

I'm not saying 7 is bad but businesses look at it and go "This is better than what we've got how?" and frankly I can't tell them how migrating to Win7 will make them more money than they do using machines with XP on them.

Well, working 64bit support and everything that goes along with moving to 64bit (more RAM) is a start. Running a more efficient OS that boots faster and responds better (which 7 actually does) would be a second point.

Businesses might get new machines with windows 7 preinstalled for that but they won't really see much reason to upgrade exiting hardware to Win7 Win2008R2. In fact much of the PCs and Laptops that are shipped with Windows 7 Pro 64-Bit end up being wiped and reimaged with the company standard Enterprise WinXP 32-Bit Image. Microsoft got their 'sale' but businesses continue to keep using what works, because upgrading the environment would take money.

Mostly if you build something completely new you probably will use Win7 and Win2K8R2 while existing systems get slowly migrated to new versions.

If you are unlucky and work in some slow moving bureaucratic environment you might be forced to create completely new systems using XP and 2k3. I have heard of at least one case where they are just now finishing upgrading to XP.

If you work for the government and plan an IT system today you should probably use Windows 9 or whatever they will call the successor to windows 8. By the time you get to implement your plan it will be out and it probably won't suck.

Karac:So my choice is find something that's still running XP, or using XP mode in 7 ultimate. I suppose I could use some other virtualization software, but XP mode doesn't require an activation code.

You don't need Ultimate for the XP VM

/It's in pro and higher//Coming back to Sarah, Windows 7 is close to eclipsing Windows XP marketshare, XP support also ends in less than 800 days now///I think this is more about MS trimming the fat, and also realizing that they pay a lot for fairly ineffective marketing

armanox:Well, working 64bit support and everything that goes along with moving to 64bit (more RAM) is a start. Running a more efficient OS that boots faster and responds better (which 7 actually does) would be a second point.

Windows 7 responds better or boots faster than XP? Maybe if they buy new hardware to go with it, sure... but on their existing hardware? No way. Most of the software written for XP was designed to run in 256MB to 512MB. Would the ability to have more than 4GB improve their situation significantly or even noticeably? Probably not. Then, of course, you've got to learn the new OS and, if you own a business, you have to multiply that expense by how many employees you have. The only real problem (and it's only a *potential* problem, at that) is when your existing hardware dies, and you need to replace not just your hardware and OS, but your applications, too. Given that most people (and small businesses) don't even do backups, though, I don't see that worrying many of them.

the_sidewinder:Karac: So my choice is find something that's still running XP, or using XP mode in 7 ultimate. I suppose I could use some other virtualization software, but XP mode doesn't require an activation code.

You don't need Ultimate for the XP VM

/It's in pro and higher//Coming back to Sarah, Windows 7 is close to eclipsing Windows XP marketshare, XP support also ends in less than 800 days now///I think this is more about MS trimming the fat, and also realizing that they pay a lot for fairly ineffective marketing

Well, when I had pro and tried to install XP mode, it kept giving me an error saying I needed to upgrade because my version wasn't compatible. It wasn't much of a bother though, one of the bosses had a relative who worked for MS and got me an upgrade for five or six dollars.

the_sidewinder://Coming back to Sarah, Windows 7 is close to eclipsing Windows XP marketshare, XP support also ends in less than 800 days now

Exactly, I wasn't saying 7 was bad. I dual boot between it and OS X, I find it a lot better than XP... but marketshare can be rather nebulous and I've seen a lot of different ways of defining it (raw sales figures, number of phone homes, etc.).

Microsoft not supporting XP won't stop businesses continuing to deploy it; as I said NT4 machines alive and kicking in 2006. They were well beyond any support from Microsoft at that point.

In 2003 I helped a bank migrate to NT4. They *might* be moving to XP soon I guess, I suspect they are still using NT4 though. What Microsoft need to do is release the 'migration' version of Windows 9 now and schedule it for release in 2020 or so.

The stories I've heard from all the Microsoft ex-employees I know (most of whom left voluntarily for jobs at other top-tier companies) indicate that most of Microsoft is too enormous and calcified to get anything done effectively. Employees spend more time in status meetings, and in the crossfire of their managers' interdepartmental battles, than on making focused and productive improvements to the product offerings.

Eliminating 200 redundant positions out of 40,000+ in the region is a small step in the right direction.

sarah_t_s:I'm not saying 7 is bad but businesses look at it and go "This is better than what we've got how?" and frankly I can't tell them how migrating to Win7 will make them more money than they do using machines with XP on them.

I'm pretty far from a Windows fanboy, but if they don't understand the vast improvement between XP and Win7 they have absolutely no technical understanding at all and shouldn't be in charge of IT.

MrEricSir:I'm pretty far from a Windows fanboy, but if they don't understand the vast improvement between XP and Win7 they have absolutely no technical understanding at all and shouldn't be in charge of IT.

They aren't in charge of IT. They're in charge of the purchasing, they're the Accountants, CEO's and Directors of companies.

How, exactly, would replacing a fully working Windows XP-SP3 Pro installation on a productive member of staffs machine with a fully working copy of Windows 7-SP1 Pro make that member of staff more productive? How does swapping one for the other make the company in question (i.e. not Microsoft) more money?

As an IT spud (i.e. me) would be busy generating build images for the various machines and therefor not arse deep in the call queue fixing stuff, wouldn't that be a loss in productivity?

sarah_t_s:How, exactly, would replacing a fully working Windows XP-SP3 Pro installation on a productive member of staffs machine with a fully working copy of Windows 7-SP1 Pro make that member of staff more productive? How does swapping one for the other make the company in question (i.e. not Microsoft) more money?

Most companies just run whatever OS came with their systems. Unless everyone is using ancient computers, you'd have to manually install XP, meaning you're reducing the power of the computer you paid for. This isn't rocket science.

sarah_t_s:MrEricSir:I'm pretty far from a Windows fanboy, but if they don't understand the vast improvement between XP and Win7 they have absolutely no technical understanding at all and shouldn't be in charge of IT.

They aren't in charge of IT. They're in charge of the purchasing, they're the Accountants, CEO's and Directors of companies.

How, exactly, would replacing a fully working Windows XP-SP3 Pro installation on a productive member of staffs machine with a fully working copy of Windows 7-SP1 Pro make that member of staff more productive? How does swapping one for the other make the company in question (i.e. not Microsoft) more money?

As an IT spud (i.e. me) would be busy generating build images for the various machines and therefor not arse deep in the call queue fixing stuff, wouldn't that be a loss in productivity?

Nah, you're a fixed cost, and IT is usually considered to be a cost center, so if they had their way you'd be working for free.

sarah_t_s:Will migrating to Windows 7 make the business more profitable? How will it do that?

Or hey, why not run the entire business on these Atari 800's I got for $50 at a garage sale? If all we care about is price and don't give the slightest shiat about performance, it's tough to beat a garage sale computer purchase.

MrEricSir:sarah_t_s: How, exactly, would replacing a fully working Windows XP-SP3 Pro installation on a productive member of staffs machine with a fully working copy of Windows 7-SP1 Pro make that member of staff more productive? How does swapping one for the other make the company in question (i.e. not Microsoft) more money?

Most companies just run whatever OS came with their systems. Unless everyone is using ancient computers, you'd have to manually install XP, meaning you're reducing the power of the computer you paid for. This isn't rocket science.

That's assuming they're buy new equipment. I believe he's talking about how do you talk the decision makers in to replacing machines - or upgrading the OS on the old ones - those decision makers see as functioning just fine as is. It's a fair point, especially in economic times like this when companies are doing their best to be as austere as possible.

MrEricSir:sarah_t_s: Will migrating to Windows 7 make the business more profitable? How will it do that?

Or hey, why not run the entire business on these Atari 800's I got for $50 at a garage sale? If all we care about is price and don't give the slightest shiat about performance, it's tough to beat a garage sale computer purchase.

Look. Migrating from Win3.1 to 9X (inc NT4 due to interface similarities) was an easy sell, the Start menu and task bar was far more efficient than the old Program Manager interface. More efficient workflow equals more productivity from staff which means more profit.

9X (but not inc NT4) to 2K dramatically improved stability in most use cases. Although there were some holdouts for a very long time. Possibly still are. That in and of itself was a fairly easy sell. Less downtime equals more productivity equals more profit.

2k to XP expanded compatibility with DOS apps (yes, still in use even today) and was again a pretty easy sell on the stability front once it'd matured for the same reasons as going from 9X to 2K.

And if you can't tell me how Win7 will make (for example) a PA who is busy 8 hours a day but their XP machine is largely idle it terms of processor usage and crashes maybe once a month if that more productive why should I bother migrating to it?

You laugh but one place I worked in the mid-90's had a stock control system that used an Amstrad CPC machine from the 80's. Similar vintage to the Atari 800. Something newer wouldn't of sped up the person manually counting boxes and scanning bar codes.

As I said: Microsofts greatest threat is Microsoft's previous products.

mongbiohazard:I believe he's talking about how do you talk the decision makers in to replacing machines - or upgrading the OS on the old ones - those decision makers see as functioning just fine as is. It's a fair point, especially in economic times like this when companies are doing their best to be as austere as possible.

Bingo.

If I knew how to sell it, I'd be doing it... XP needs to go quietly in to the night.

Damn Microsoft for the hell they created for all of us.They set the framework for everyone to embrace bloatware and sloppy internal structuring.The software industry has been full of inefficient programmers as a result.The hardware industry overflows with low quality crap as well.Windows, Schmindoze.